Experts

Absent I agree with 90% + of what you are saying (and I applaud your correct reference to Pope, which is so often misquoted)

I think one of the reasons that 'experts' are much maligned these days is that there have been increasing instances of them being proved wrong, especially those used by governments to uphold a point which in truth had not been proved. An example that beef was safe to eat when in fact there was a risk (albeit small) of vCJD.

Often 'experts' deal in speculation, and are trotted out by the media on almost every occasion.

So while I do take your point, especially re nutrition, medical issues, etc. I can understand the back lash against them in some quarters. It does take some level of understanding/experience/learning and the ability to pass information through a reality checker, qualities which the likes of the new UKIP leader (whose name escapes me), even with his advanced qualifications seems to lack,

I hope that was vaguely coherent as I'm dizzy with tiredness and viral infection. I'll doubtless read this in the morning and think 'did I really write that?'

It was interesting today to note that an expert in history who had extremely strong views on the EU referendum (strongly for remain and calling people who voted Brexit 'Ango-loonies'), presumably based on his extensive historical knowledge, has now changed his mind and realises that he is staunchly Brexit.

Is he more of an expert on this political question than Tom, Dick or Mary in the pub?
Professor Niall Ferguson:
inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/historian-niall-ferguson-i-wrong-support-remain/

What is considered to be 'an expert opinion' and 'scientific proof' eg in areas such as nutrition, may well prove to be dangerously wrong in years to come.
Perhaps we should take many 'experts' opinions' with a pinch of salt (but possibly not a very large one).

Niall Ferguson being a prime example of why the word expert is a joke in our house.
That's got me thinking about opinions that I have / had that I have changed my mind about.

I think you are spot on Anya and that your reasoning is heightened by your viral infection. So called experts are trotted out at every opportunity if it suits ANY government's plans, and we have seen a lot of wrong predictions.Historians in particular are a mixed bag with their own theories to push.When DD was at Oxford (taking History) she saw this at first hand, the various dons did everything to overcome their rivals short of fist fights.Why should be trust them to predict the economic future?Even economists cannot do that with any certainty.

I always smile when I recall HM the Queen's visit to the LSE shortly after the financial crash. She smiled her sweet smile and asked why so many experts had not foreseen it. Spot on Queenie. I always distrust economic forecasts because they are basically guesswork. I think it's healthy to question experts.

So much of the problem is that an experts opinion as presented on the media is so often selected excerpts from an interview or written statement'adjusted' to meet the requirements of the media broadcast. When 'experts' give opinions they will usually quote all the sources and reasoning that led to that decision - and their reservations. News and social media have no interest in this so just choose a few quick phrases. Googlers look for the short simple quote. They rarely research a topic properly

There has also been a concerted effort over recent years to make science and scientists, in the widest sense more 'accessible' so all announcements of new research are mediated through university press offices. DS is an academic and often fumes how press officers who do not understand the subject they are dealing with completely distort what the research he did was and what it meant.

Then experts are as much prone to holding deep prejudices and following fashionable memes as the rest of us. Most people know about the theory of plate tectonics - that the surface of the earth consists of plates that 'float' on the surface and move around, South America used to tuck gently into the bulge of Africa. This theory was not accepted until the 1950s when satellite photography finally proved it. The man who developed the theory in the early 20th century and whose ideas were dismissed as ridiculous, accepted that his theory had been developed before science was prepared to consider it and that it would not be accepted until long after his death in 1930.

It goes for all walks of life,from the so called elite down to the ordinary run of the mill.There will always be a self proclaimed expert,I usually make up my own mind,it usually only takes common sense and I pride myself with having plenty of that.

Experts said women who learnt to type would collapse over the keyboard...........after years at work I think I did just that.

Critical thinking is the thing on all matters, every court case will how that out of a pair of experts one of them is always wrong.

I was talking to 'an expert' earlier this year who was full of interesting facts and information about our planet.
She was a member of the Flat Earth Society - very convincing!

I agree with M0nica, a lot of "expert" opinion is channelled through press offices, where soundbite is more important than information. The rise and rise of total rubbish on social media is also a concern. A large number of people now get their information from facebook and "faction " and are no longer educated to search for proof.

And Gagagran, how right the Queen was re: the financial crash. Anyone could see it coming. Any of us who were young adults in the 70s could see the signs (again) of an overheated economy. It's a pity the expert economists couldn't.

Great post, Absent. Get well soon, Anya.
I think some of it must be partly because of the 24 hour rolling news - producers feel under pressure to put someone in front of a camera or microphone, so whoever is available is grabbed. I was horrified to read that about the UKIP p**l*ck arguing with Mary Beard. What arrogance!
I also think the word celebrity is over used. I think it's appropriate for those people who are famous for being famous, but sometimes it's used for people with talent and I don't think the two should be confused.

The definition of an expert is someone who knows a bit about something and very little about everything or words to that affect. Some so called experts I wouldn't give house room too and most celebrities I've never even heard of. Everyone has an opinion but that doesn't make them an expert

Back in the day I was an 'expert' in 'Domestic violence in Scotland' having been a WA worker for, eventually, 18+ years, read and digested everything published on the topic and fully conversant with all relevant Matrimonial and Housing law, Benefits, etc. I lectured to and trained Police, housing, welfare and health workers - was a Board member of a programme designed for abusive men, a specialised Housing Association and a group who managed to amend a Matrimonial Homes Act.

However, when I was interviewed for TV, radio or newspapers or on the panel at a conference, my knowledge was usually ignored, not reported or skewed. Instead all mentions of DA had to be accompanied by a picture in silhouette of a woman washing dishes and the recounting of one woman's personal story, which might, or might not be relevant to the aspect under discussion.

Oh, Granny23 I take my hat off to you! That must have been soooo frustrating, to have your knowledge swept to one side for the dumbing down of the story.

I think we should take a scientific approach and believe only what hard evidence shows us. Anything else is opinion and should rightly be challenged at every step. After all, when facts are unproven, then everyone is as 'expert' as the next man - although the people who are usually right seem to be women.
Naturally, that last comment is open to discussion and disagreement

i do rather like the recently invented term "mansplaining" which is when a man condescends to explain something to a woman who knows more than he does about the topic.
I think the term "expert" is overused and over-extended. An expert in some expert of quilting may be someone with a lifetime of practical experience.
An "expert" on retroviruses on the other hand, would be someone who had spent a couple of decades reading research and doing research into a highly specialised and difficult subject.
Someone who is an academic historian is only an expert on their area of interest. If they choose to extrapolate to current events, that's an opinion. Not an expert opinion.
There is a huge problem with politicians in that few of them have had a scientific or similar training and education. Therefore their grasp of what "evidence" is and what conclusions you should draw is, in general, very limited. They tend to form policy on the basis of their opinions not on evidence. Journalists too, keep picking up snippets of research (preliminary study on mice, usually) and splashing them across front pages with headlines like "Cure for dementia!"

michelle quite a number of economists, did see the crash coming, but nobody wanted to hear them. An expert can give information but they cannot make the person receiving the information take any notice of it.

Warnings that the economy was overheating had been around in the media since about 2000. But no-one wanted to know. So many people were making so much money, especially banks and financial institutions that they just wanted the good times to roll on. They couldn't believe they would ever end. In the end they did so they turned on the experts and blamed them for not warning them. But the experts did publish warnings, but nobody wanted to listen to them.

The Queen asked the wrong people the question. She should have asked the bankers and politicians who ignored the advice, why.

Someone who is an academic historian is only an expert on their area of interest. If they choose to extrapolate to current events, that's an opinion. Not an expert opinion.

I agree, and the trouble is that they believe, because they are experts in their field, that they are experts in everything else too; they have a degree of confidence which comes from knowing their own field thoroughly and expounding to possibly awe-struck students. Therefore they then believe they have the knowledge in other fields to tell others what they should be thinking, how they should be acting and disparage those who disagree.

Until, of course, they change their minds

Economics is not an exact science and no-one can accurately predict what influences world events will have on any situation.

Nobody can claim to accurately predict the future in any field, there are always black swan events, events that cannot be forecast, that can disrupt plans but I would always give more credence to the person who knows their field to one who doesn't. If I am ill, I am more likely to accept the views of a specialist consultant when he tells me how a condition will develop in the future, than that of a lawyer, even one who works in medical law.

We all make predictions and act on them all the time. I am currently planning for Christmas, in expectation that everything will happen as in previous years but there could always be unexpected events to disrupt it. Illness, accidents, DD's Christmas shift pattern suffering a last minute change, unlikely, it hasn't happened in 10 years but... But if Black swan events were regular events they wouldn't be Black Swan events.

When planning for the future you look at all the possible outcomes and their probabilities and make decisions on that basis. On a personal level you are your own expert, for bigger things you look to an expert in the relevant field. Life wouldn't function if we did not continually make assessments of what will happen in the future and act on those assessments.

I think most people use common sense. I want an expert medical practitioner and I know the difference between that and a quack. Anyway an "expert" means you don't have to think for your self and develop some critical judgement and the bonus is that you can blame someone when the information is incorrect.

Disparagement is the order of the day and when "experts" like Arron Banks consider themselves to know more about Roman history than a classical scholar I despair. It seems that we have begun to equate money and power with truth and intellectual rigour.

Well, the OP said the new UKIP leader so I assumed Nuttall, but perhaps absent meant Arron Banks?

The Guardian said Arron Banks, UKIP donor, presumably that is correct.